LudicrousSpeed said:
Only twice in the last 12 or 13 years has the #1 seed been decided by anything other than head to head. In that same period four times the #2 seed has been decided. By this logic you should be bothered even less by a 2nd seed team not earning a bye, since "so often" they only got that #2 seed based on conference win percentage.
Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about if you're just going to blindly assume the 7th best team in each conference every year is "mediocre". And I assume you've never watched playoff football if you're also assuming the #2 seed will automatically "pound" them. You're not really arguing with logic here, just blanket statements that aren't based in reality.
Well Miami would not have made it in last season. Nor would the Bills, they'd have been the 4th ranked 9-7 team. But the Texans were ending the season on a roll and were playing good defense. It also would have given the Chiefs AND Chargers something to play for in week 17 instead of just the Chargers. In 2013 you would have had the 10-6 Cardinals in after winning 7 of their last 9, losing only two games by field goals, each to 10+ win playoff teams. These aren't 5 or 6 win teams being allowed in :)
Nah, early season injuries a team bounces back from are not nearly the same as an injury happening in a playoff game. Furthermore we're talking about the regular season that sets up the playoffs. Not the playoffs. Pointing out that the same can happen in a playoff game doesn't negate how important the regular season is. It's not the same argument. The same argument would be me coming back and saying yes, injuries can happen! Lets play 12 regular season games.
We've seen more wild card teams get dominated in the playoffs than we have seen 7 win division champions. I guess we should just eliminate all wild cards? It's ok, the change is coming sooner rather than later. |
Only twice in the last 12 or 13 years has the #1 seed been decided by anything other than head to head. In that same period four times the #2 seed has been decided. By this logic you should be bothered even less by a 2nd seed team not earning a bye, since "so often" they only got that #2 seed based on conference win percentage.
Firstly, head to head IS a tiebreaker, but secondly...
My point was along the lines of there are far less times where teams #1-#3 are decided solely by tiebreaker. In other words, just about every time, I can turn to the #3 seed and say "at least one team with a bye had a better record than you, so stop complaining about not having a bye."
In other words, there's less of a chance of a team to get screwed over as badly by, say, being the team that had to play on the road in the head to head game. You can make an argument that last year's NFC Championship was, at least in part, decided by the mere fact that the Seahawks got to play the Packers at home; I'm not sure that Seattle comeback happens if the game's in Green Bay. Tiebreakers are very often a fickle and annoying beast, and having two spots open for byes mitigates that a bit.
Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about if you're just going to blindly assume the 7th best team in each conference every year is "mediocre". And I assume you've never watched playoff football if you're also assuming the #2 seed will automatically "pound" them. You're not really arguing with logic here, just blanket statements that aren't based in reality.
I listed all of the seventh best teams in the two conferences over the past three years earlier. Only once did any team have over 9 wins. I'd call 9-7 a mediocre record, so yeah, I think it's safe to assume that, far more often than not, they will be mediocre.
Perhaps instead of just simply asserting that the person you're debating "doesn't know what they're talking about" like you usually seem to do, you could provide some actual evidence to support your response here.
Well Miami would not have made it in last season. Nor would the Bills, they'd have been the 4th ranked 9-7 team. But the Texans were ending the season on a roll and were playing good defense. It also would have given the Chiefs AND Chargers something to play for in week 17 instead of just the Chargers. In 2013 you would have had the 10-6 Cardinals in after winning 7 of their last 9, losing only two games by field goals, each to 10+ win playoff teams.
These aren't 5 or 6 win teams being allowed in :)
I wasn't specifically referencing last year, but ok.
Also, as I mentioned to Rol, keep in mind I'm advocating for a system where the top 6 teams get in, regardless of division rules. That means the 2013 Cardinals would have been in, while the barely over .500 Packers stayed home.
Nah, early season injuries a team bounces back from are not nearly the same as an injury happening in a playoff game. Furthermore we're talking about the regular season that sets up the playoffs. Not the playoffs. Pointing out that the same can happen in a playoff game doesn't negate how important the regular season is. It's not the same argument. The same argument would be me coming back and saying yes, injuries can happen! Lets play 12 regular season games.
The argument you brought up initially, from what I can gather, is: "Teams can get screwed over by injuries. If you have more playoff teams, teams that suffer injuries in the regular season are less likely to be screwed out of the playoffs."
My point is that adding an additional playoff game just gives more opportunities for potential season ruining injuries, as well as giving the chance for that injury to occur in a game that wouldn't have existed otherwise. In other words, your attempt to save the occasional good team that might have gotten screwed out of the playoffs were it not for an injury doesn't hold water because you're simply giving teams more chances to have key players be injured in a far more important environment. There's no bouncing back from an injury that requires you to sit several games in the playoffs.
We've seen more wild card teams get dominated in the playoffs than we have seen 7 win division champions. I guess we should just eliminate all wild cards? It's ok, the change is coming sooner rather than later.
I don't have a clue what this statement even means, so I guess I'll ask for clarification. "We've seen more wild card teams get dominated in the playoffs than we have seen seven win division champions?" What?
